Skip to main content

Non-localised Spatial Competition: The “Spokes Model”

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Spatial Economics Volume I

Abstract

The “spokes model” takes the name from its graphical visualisation that resembles the spokes of a bike’s wheel. It describes a market as a collection of spokes, joining at a common centre, where consumers are located. Firms may be situated at the extreme of these spokes, at the interior of the market structure or even outside of the spokes structure. The model has been introduced relatively recently (Chen and Riordan, Econ J 117(522):897–921, 2007a) and it is a useful tool to model product differentiation. An important characteristic is that competition between firms is spatial, that is, the distance between consumers and firms is crucial for the outcomes, but non-localised, as a firm competes directly with all others and not only with the neighbours. This chapter (1) introduces a benchmark version of the spokes model, (2) clarifies important characteristics that distinguish it from other approaches existing in the literature, and (3) highlights its suitability for applications, by reviewing the flourishing literature that has been adopting this approach. Applications are presented by reviewing the role of non-localised competition on (1) pricing decisions, (2) location choices, and (3) variety provision.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The interested reader can find the proof in Chen and Riordan (2007a), pp. 917–919.

References

  • Amaldoss, W., & He, C. (2010). Product variety, informative advertising, and price competition. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(1), 146–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amaldoss, W., & He, C. (2013). Pricing prototypical products. Marketing Science, 32(5), 733–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, S. P., De Palma, A., & Thisse, J. F. (1992). Discrete choice theory of product differentiation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aydogan, N., & Lyon, T. P. (2004). Spatial proximity and complementarities in the trading of tacit knowledge. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22(8–9), 1115–1135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, J. B. (1995). Vertical restraints with horizontal consequences: Competitive effects of most-favored-customer clauses. Antitrust LJ, 64, 517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besanko, D., & Lyon, T. P. (1993). Equilibrium incentives for most-favored customer clauses in an oligopolistic industry. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 11(3), 347–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, S. (2005). Hotelling games with three, four, and more players. Journal of Regional Science, 45(4), 851–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caminal, R. (2010). Markets and linguistic diversity. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(3), 774–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caminal, R., & Claici, A. (2007). Are loyalty-rewarding pricing schemes anti-competitive? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 25(4), 657–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caminal, R., & Granero, L. M. (2012). Multi-product firms and product variety. Economica, 79(314), 303–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J., & Liu, Q. (2011). The effect of Most-Favored Customer clauses on prices. Journal of Industrial Economics, 59(3), 343–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., & Hua, X. (2017). Competition, product safety, and product liability. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 33(2), 237–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., & Riordan, M. H. (2007a). Price and variety in the spokes model. Economic Journal, 117(522), 897–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., & Riordan, M. H. (2007b). Vertical integration, exclusive dealing, and expost cartelization. RAND Journal of Economics, 38(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., & Riordan, M. H. (2008). Price-increasing competition. RAND Journal of Economics, 39(4), 1042–1058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., & Schwartz, M. (2016). Churn versus diversion in antitrust: An illustrative model. Economica, 83(332), 564–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, T. E. (1986). Most-favored-customer pricing and tacit collusion. RAND Journal of Economics, 17, 377–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dargaud, E., & Reggiani, C. (2015). On the price effects of horizontal mergers: A theoretical interpretation. Bulletin of Economic Research, 67(3), 236–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • d’Aspremont, C., Gabszewicz, J. J., & Thisse, J. F. (1979). On Hotelling’s “Stability in competition”. Econometrica, 47(5), 1145–1150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixit, A. K., & Stiglitz, J. E. (1977). Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity. American Economic Review, 67(3), 297–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Economides, N. (1986). Minimal and maximal product differentiation in Hotelling’s duopoly. Economics Letters, 21(1), 67–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firgo, M., Pennerstorfer, D., & Weiss, C. R. (2015). Centrality and pricing in spatially differentiated markets: The case of gasoline. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 40, 81–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fudenberg, D., & Tirole, J. (2000). Customer poaching and brand switching. RAND Journal of Economics, 31, 634–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganuza, J.-J., & Hauk, E. (2006). Allocating ideas: Horizontal competition in tournaments. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 15(3), 763–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Germano, F., & Meier, M. (2013). Concentration and self-censorship in commercial media. Journal of Public Economics, 97, 117–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granero, L. M. (2013). Most-favored-customer pricing, product variety, and welfare. Economics Letters, 120(3), 579–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granero, L. M. (2019). Strategic product variety and quality choice. Economics Letters, 182, 10–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, O. D. (1985). Monopolistic competition in the spirit of chamberlin: A general model. The Review of Economic Studies, 52(4), 529–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hotelling, H. (1929). Stability in competition. Economic Journal, 39, 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Izmalkov, S., & Sinyashin, A. (2019). Davids and goliath: Spatial competition of niche and general products. Mimeo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederer, P. J., & Hurter, A. P. (1986). Competition of firms: Discriminatory pricing and location. Econometrica, 54, 623–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lijesen, M. G., & Reggiani, C. (2019). Specialization, generic firms and market competition. Mimeo. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3246996

  • Lijesen, M. G., & Reggiani, C. (2020). Product variety and market competition in the dutch car repair market. Mimeo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loginova, O. (2019). Price competition online: Platforms vs. branded websites. Mimeo.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod, W. B., Norman, G., & Thisse, J.-F. (1988). Price discrimination and equilibrium in monopolistic competition. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 6(4), 429–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mantovani, A., & Ruiz-Aliseda, F. (2016). Equilibrium innovation ecosystems: The dark side of collaborating with complementors. Management Science, 62(2), 534–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competition (Vol. 300, p. 28). New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reggiani, C. (2014). Spatial price discrimination in the spokes model. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 23(3), 628–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, A. (2011). Can prominence matter even in an almost frictionless market? Economic Journal, 121(556), F297–F308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salop, S. C. (1979). Monopolistic competition with outside goods. Bell Journal of Economics, 10(1), 141–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somaini, P., & Einav, L. (2013). A model of market power in customer markets. Journal of Industrial Economics, 61(4), 938–986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabuchi, T., & Thisse, J.-F. (1995). Asymmetric equilibria in spatial competition. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13(2), 213–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, T., & Wang, R. (2018). A network-city model of spatial competition. Economics Letters, 170, 168–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlo Reggiani .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Reggiani, C. (2020). Non-localised Spatial Competition: The “Spokes Model”. In: Colombo, S. (eds) Spatial Economics Volume I. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40098-9_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40098-9_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-40097-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-40098-9

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics